breaking news Supreme Court Asks BCCI To Implement Lodha Report In Full,BCCI To Reply In 4 Week

[Mariyam]

Chandan

 

We are confusing two extremely different things here. I am not denying that the BCCI is a rotten organization. There is absolutely not doubt that they haven't been fair to their smaller state level organizational units. My objection however is to the application of the RTI on BCCI practices.

 

Who are the stake-holders?  Why should you (or I, or indeed any member of the general public) have to have the knowledge about how the BCCI functions? That is an extremely odd request by the SC. Borderline unconstitutional request. Even registered housing societies do not fall under the ambit of the RTI. If the SC wishes more transparency, it can enforce stronger legislation so that the stakeholders aren't bypassed. If there is a consensus about the BCCI being a semi-govt agency, they can even order an audit by the CAG. But why on earth should BCCI come under the RTI? Companies have lost competitive advantages that way when their working patterns have been made public domain. 

[Chandan]

BCCI is not a company. It selects teams for the nation. Its a sports body which has to be autonomous but at the same time transparent and accountable. Once it is both, it should not be aftraid of coming under RTI as it won't be doing any wrong things despite doing the public job like selecting a team for India.

 

Whay do you object? What questions you think BCCI should be afraid of? Why should it not give information to fans or to anyone asking as they are the major stakeholders of the game??

Edited May 4, 2016 by Chandan

[Mariyam]

The fans are equal stake holders in "Balika Vadhu" or " Crime Patrol India ( even uses the word India)" as they are in BCCI. That is to say that the fans are not stakeholders at all. Your (and my) only stake is an emotional involvement in our national team. And that is an intangible asset , scratch that, liability for the BCCI these days. The BCCI is not answerable to a fan nor should is it under any obligation to disclose any of its deals, however sordid it maybe, to a member of the general public. That is not how the RTI works.

 

As an example, if there were a set manager in Crime Patrol India who took 20 lakhs for a particular set and used only 2 lakhs pocketing the rest, and if the viewers felt that the quality of the show is being compromised they can move court to order an investigation. It the prerogative of the court and the investigating authorities to figure out if there is any misappropriation of funds and if it does contravene any laws or by a long shot consumer laws. Under no circumstances is an entity answerable to individuals on how it chooses to do its business. 

 

One could argue that the TV channels are stakeholders as their income is at stake depending on the direct output of certain BCCI functions. If they wish they could take BCCI to court.

 

This is not about the BCCI being scared to come under the ambit of the RTI. I don't know what their stand is. The RTI Act wasn't designed for frivolous appeals to what is an extended part of the  entertainment industry at best. Governments time and agencies should be used more judiciously.

[Chandan]

6 hours ago, Mariyam said:

The fans are equal stake holders in "Balika Vadhu" or " Crime Patrol India ( even uses the word India)" as they are in BCCI. That is to say that the fans are not stakeholders at all. Your (and my) only stake is an emotional involvement in our national team. And that is an intangible asset , scratch that, liability for the BCCI these days. The BCCI is not answerable to a fan nor should is it under any obligation to disclose any of its deals, however sordid it maybe, to a member of the general public. That is not how the RTI works.

 

 

One simple Q,

 

Are TV serieal production houses public bodies, as is BCCI and it is proved in SC, even yesterday?? Read the article I posted few posts back.

[kruiser]

6 hours ago, Mariyam said:

The fans are equal stake holders in "Balika Vadhu" or " Crime Patrol India ( even uses the word India)" as they are in BCCI. That is to say that the fans are not stakeholders at all. Your (and my) only stake is an emotional involvement in our national team. And that is an intangible asset , scratch that, liability for the BCCI these days. The BCCI is not answerable to a fan nor should is it under any obligation to disclose any of its deals, however sordid it maybe, to a member of the general public. That is not how the RTI works.

 

As an example, if there were a set manager in Crime Patrol India who took 20 lakhs for a particular set and used only 2 lakhs pocketing the rest, and if the viewers felt that the quality of the show is being compromised they can move court to order an investigation. It the prerogative of the court and the investigating authorities to figure out if there is any misappropriation of funds and if it does contravene any laws or by a long shot consumer laws. Under no circumstances is an entity answerable to individuals on how it chooses to do its business. 

 

One could argue that the TV channels are stakeholders as their income is at stake depending on the direct output of certain BCCI functions. If they wish they could take BCCI to court.

 

This is not about the BCCI being scared to come under the ambit of the RTI. I don't know what their stand is. The RTI Act wasn't designed for frivolous appeals to what is an extended part of the  entertainment industry at best. Governments time and agencies should be used more judiciously.

Hilarious Analogy!  So if team "India" from BCCI does not give me enough entertainment, I should start watching team Jhumri Talaiya from KCCI!

 

BCCI is not mamu ki dukaan that can do as it pleases! Players in the team represent the nation and not BCCI.

[Chandan]

BCCI doing public service, subject to rule of law: SC

 

BCCI is not doing any business or trade. It is doing a public service as the governing body. 

 

“The BCCI is not doing any business or trade but running an activity. It is subject to rule of law as it is discharging a public function. No one is above the law and BCCI is also subject matter of law,”

 

Hence all the rules. I wonder why some people have objection!!

[Malcolm Merlyn]

BCCI doing public service, subject to rule of law: SC

 

BCCI is not doing any business or trade. It is doing a public service as the governing body. 

 

“The BCCI is not doing any business or trade but running an activity. It is subject to rule of law as it is discharging a public function. No one is above the law and BCCI is also subject matter of law,”

 

Hence all the rules. I wonder why some people have objection!!

What public service?The SC in 2005 said something else.And now is changing it.BCCI uses no public money no taxpayers money.

It arranges matches for entertainment for which fans pay money.You dont like it dont pay for it.Simple.Just like you go to watch a movie.BCCI pays taxes like a business organisation.

BCCI is a member of ICC and selects team for playing under ICC.Someone else is free to organise cricket outside ICC purview as no one holds copyright over cricket.

And please stop posting what SC says,thats what is being contested here.That SC is doing something unconstitutional and beyond its purview and hence judicial overreach.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

@chandan

If due to this govt interference ICC bans BCCI.The present BCCI members then form another body and that is the recognised by ICC what will SC do?Tell ICC to follow its diktat?Its not SC's job to run cricket or tell sporting bodies who use no taxpayers money.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

Hilarious Analogy!  So if team "India" from BCCI does not give me enough entertainment, I should start watching team Jhumri Talaiya from KCCI!

 

BCCI is not mamu ki dukaan that can do as it pleases! Players in the team represent the nation and not BCCI.

Players represent BCCI in ICC tournaments.You need to read the history of ICC to know that.Its a administrative body of its members and nothing else.

Someone is free to form KCCI and run cricket but outside ICC.

[Chandan]

18 hours ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

 

 

What public service?The SC in 2005 said something else.And now is changing it.BCCI uses no public money no taxpayers money.

 

It arranges matches for entertainment for which fans pay money.You dont like it dont pay for it.Simple.Just like you go to watch a movie.BCCI pays taxes like a business organisation.

 

BCCI is a member of ICC and selects team for playing under ICC.Someone else is free to organise cricket outside ICC purview as no one holds copyright over cricket.

And please stop posting what SC says,thats what is being contested here.That SC is doing something unconstitutional and beyond its purview and hence judicial overreach.

SC does something unconstitutional? And BCCI is doing something perfectly within the constitution??

 

WOW!!! Well I don't have to say anything to you then. 

[Malcolm Merlyn]

SC does something unconstitutional? And BCCI is doing something perfectly within the constitution??

 

WOW!!! Well I don't have to say anything to you then. 

Is SC infallible then?

BCCI is a independent organisation and uses no taxpayers money so why should the govt poke its nose there?

[Chandan]

2 minutes ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

Is SC infallible then?

BCCI is a independent organisation and uses no taxpayers money so why should the govt poke its nose there?

Govt pokes the nose? Where? You think SC is govt?

 

You seem very confused.

 

Plus how much of tax waiver BCCI receives, in the name of doing a public service, you need to go and read from BCCI's finance reports.

 

More when you are clear. And I post the these reports as the updates on the matter, many forummers my be interested in discussing/knowing.

[Mariyam]

kruiser and Chandan

 

My analogy has nothing to do with BCCI providing public service, that is another debate altogether.

 

The analogy is about the general population being stakeholders, which by any stretch they are not.

 

What public service does the BCCI provide to the general population? When you say you are a stake holder, what stake do you think you hold? What is the tangible which the BCCI is supposed to provide to the people of India? These are basic question which have no satisfactory answers.

 

The charter of the RTI mentions grades of PIOs that an entity must have to answer queries, basically based on the nature of the duty is discharges.  If competitive edge is discharging duty is at risk because of a query, it becomes invalid. 

 

As I see it, BCCI is not very different from say the Motion Pictures Association of India. They organize what is essentially an entertainment company. No doubt that they are corrupt to the last groundsman. Send the auditors after them. Have them clean their act. That is the logical progression of things.

 

Having them fall under the ambit of the RTI demeans the RTI. This kind of frivolous questioning of a dubious 'service' is not what it was intended for. 

[Chandan]

Don't Legalise Betting In Cricket: Subramaniam

 

Commenting on Lodha Panel’s BCCI report, Supreme Court-appointed amicus curiae contends betting could encourage match-fixing

 

A Supreme Court-appointed amicus curiae has disagreed with the Lodha Committee Recommendation to make betting legal in India as that would be “detrimental” to cricket as “it could encourage match fixing/spot fixing” due to an “unbreakable link” between the two malaise.

The only other recommendation that well-known lawyer Gopal Subramanium, tasked to suggest ways to the Supreme Court to implement the epoch-making recommendations to reform the BCCI, has not agreed with is the nomination of IPL franchisees on the IPL governing council. The Lodha panel had suggested two franchisees’ nominees on the governing council.

.............

 

 

BCCI, which came into existence 87 years ago and has been running without any checks and balances by the central/state governments. The BCCI contends that since it doesn’t take any financial assistance from the government, it is not obliged to toe the government line.

However, the fact is that almost all cricket stadiums are built on land leased by the state governments, matches are organised with help of the police, and no teams can travel abroad or foreign teams can visit India without express permission by the central government. These are only a few examples of the assistance that the BCCI takes from the government.

-----------------------------------------------------------

 

Good. Just want to see what BCCI's lawyers reply.

 

.

[Chandan]

BCCI pleads with SC to halt Lodha reform process

(A part of article)

 

After narrating the steps taken by BCCI to change its old style of functioning, Venugopal asked, "It is not necessary for the court to interfere any more. Is the court sure that these reforms are necessary? It is unnecessarily creating a negative image of the board in public despite it working hard over the years to make India the top cricketing nation."

The bench said, "We were not sure earlier. That is why we appointed three wise men led by Justice Lodha to give us a report. It is the very negative atmosphere prevailing about the board that forced the court to seek recommendations for reforming the functioning of the board. It is good that you have implemented some of the reforms. We are on the other difficult parts."

Finding the board resisting further reforms, the bench asked, "Do you think the proceedings are for winding up the BCCI? It is to make its functioning more transparent and make it a more credible organization in the eyes of the public. It is to make you more prosperous and gain more popularity to do better in future. Why are you so apprehensive about reforms?"

------------

 

BCCI counsel was not convincing at all. Think the date of verdict, or next date is 30th JUNE, after summer vacation.

 

In the gap. BCCI has to elect its President and bring some more reforms into practice.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

20 minutes ago, Chandan said:

BCCI pleads with SC to halt Lodha reform process

(A part of article)

 

After narrating the steps taken by BCCI to change its old style of functioning, Venugopal asked, "It is not necessary for the court to interfere any more. Is the court sure that these reforms are necessary? It is unnecessarily creating a negative image of the board in public despite it working hard over the years to make India the top cricketing nation."

The bench said, "We were not sure earlier. That is why we appointed three wise men led by Justice Lodha to give us a report. It is the very negative atmosphere prevailing about the board that forced the court to seek recommendations for reforming the functioning of the board. It is good that you have implemented some of the reforms. We are on the other difficult parts."

Finding the board resisting further reforms, the bench asked, "Do you think the proceedings are for winding up the BCCI? It is to make its functioning more transparent and make it a more credible organization in the eyes of the public. It is to make you more prosperous and gain more popularity to do better in future. Why are you so apprehensive about reforms?"

------------

 

BCCI counsel was not convincing at all. Think the date of verdict, or next date is 30th JUNE, after summer vacation.

 

In the gap. BCCI has to elect its President and bring some more reforms into practice.

 

This is not the end.There would be a flurry of other boards who will be intervening.Plus i hear that TV channels are going to plead their case as well.

 

The SC cant try to run cricket in India.Its not their job.Their job is to adjuticate matters between two parties or settle points on constitution.

[Chandan]

We'll see. Nearly half of of the reforms are put in practice. The other half which the BCCI is protesting, they couldn't give any convincing reason for it and many other body supported the reforms. If others had to resist these reforms too, why were they quiet till now?? They could have come up with their points, like those who were supporting it, were there with their points.

 

Read the article to know.

[rkt.india]

Dont know how can court decide about the tv commercial. Who will compensate for the revenue loss?

[Chandan]

2 hours ago, rkt.india said:

Dont know how can court decide about the tv commercial. Who will compensate for the revenue loss?

Just tell me, if the board starts showing just a 4 ball over,(2 balls are gulped by ads) and that over too is intervened by L shaped ads and what nots, who will take care of spectators interest? Just answer this Q.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

We'll see. Nearly half of of the reforms are put in practice. The other half which the BCCI is protesting, they couldn't give any convincing reason for it and many other body supported the reforms. If others had to resist these reforms too, why were they quiet till now?? They could have come up with their points, like those who were supporting it, were there with their points.

 

Read the article to know.

I am following this on a day to day basis and from people who are involved.No BCCI member has supported this.

What other bodies do doesnt matter because they are not BCCI members.BCCI isnt a govt body nor does it take any taxpayers money so it is under no obligation to have all these stupid reforms SC has asked it to follow.SC wants BCCI to be another third rate Indian sporting body which goes to the govt and around the world begging for coins.And many BCCI member bodies have already raised their objections to the court and others will do the same.